MOVE YOUR FEET! A <rant> of sorts.

Many times we're guilty of "Target Fixation" & all we "see" is what is right in front of us as we fly our image into the ground-air interface.
Fighter pilots are taught to scan from near to far, to see that the kill zone is clear, & then to look at threats outside the kill zone. You need to learn to do that too, & not get caught in the target fixation trap.

How does that apply to cars? How many times have you seen a shot with a light pole sticking out of the roof? Or someones white t-shirt & knobby knees reflected in the side? How about a big white parking permit hanging from the mirror? And while a group of trees might make a nice background, one or two growing out of the body are a distraction that's easily avoided.

I try to take a shot of possible locations when I see them. This doesn't look like the most inviting location for a car shot, does it? But if your objective is to make a car, or anything else, look good instead of a "Car in Landscape" or "Car in Cool Environment" shot, just how much background do you really need?
I used it for these shots: UBNXOUS Beast! part #2.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I thought I'd try to hide the cars in the background so I MOVED MY FEET to the right a few feet & both the reflections in the side & the background looked a lot better. See the difference?

If I really wanted the angle in #2 I'd have MOVED THE CAR again. Pretty simple, right?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Image #4
Just some minor PS work: I darkened the headlights & the highlights in the side a little. Warmed up the highlights in the side, hood, & windows.
How did I do that? See post #9: Airport runway shoot

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Now a word about the "Creative framing" we see here in the forum. Why? Does it really make the car look better?
I have no objection to tilting the image if that's what you like, and if it really does improve the image, but with a straight image, which of these images below look better? Isn't making the subject look better the point of learning about photography?

OTOH, if your intent is to disturb the viewer, then it's an accepted technique & I would only use it if that was the emotion I needed to portray, or what the client was paying for.

So, everyone has their own "vision" of what the results should be. The person who's paying me gets to make the rules. I'll always include some shots that illustrate the way that I "see" the job being done. They can use them, or not, but I try to deliver more than I contracted for.
If I'm not being paid, then I shoot to satisfy myself. Consider "Rules" as guides that usually hold true. OTOH, you do have a brain. Sometimes you learn more by breaking them.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
-- Ansel Adams

Photography Composition Articles TONS of info here.
There's a link in there to a Composition Adjuster: This is a really neat Java app that will show your image with various "Rules" applied to it.
http://photoinf.com …Composition-Adjuster.html

Image #6, below.
This shot was cropped this way for a reason, to show both cars, and...
Do you notice that the car looks longer in that crop? Most people are satisfied with the proportion of the frame that the camera gives them. But what's "right"? 5X7? 8X10? 8X12? 4X10?
My short answer is to crop to the important elements of the image, not to some arbitrary paper size, & then use a mat to cover the "excess" space in the frame. A mat & frame also help isolate the image from the usual white walls that they're hung on, & can make a big difference in how it looks. Take a look at POST #30 near the bottom: The gray bar at the center is the same density all the way across.
A few Car Lighting Tips

Composition Articles library

Understanding Aspect Ratios and The Art of Cropping

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

A few links, for that one person who hasn't see them yet.

A few Car Lighting Tips - Updated

This shows how the subject can affect the exposure & why manual keeps me worry free:
Post #47

Thread on manual exposure. First set the f-stop & shutter speed you need. Then adjust the ISO.
Need an exposure crutch?

COMMON MISTAKES WHEN SHOOTING A CAR

Keep reading. There's more info below.

is that a replacement fender or just the angle? looks to have a different finish compared to the doors. (on your malibu)

of the hot rod pics, the first one looks best. you took out the honey in green from the others.

Besides needing a wash, it's as it came from GM, so it's the angle of the light in the first shots. I may have darkened that fender in images #3-4 when I warmed up the side, though.

I just KNEW someone would say that!

I prefer 9 the best, but while you at it, I'd also clone out the pole that *almost* grows out of the hood.

I have this urgent need to get rid of poles and powerlines

I expected that, too. I wonder where you get that compulsion from?

I think 7 is best because it doesn't have the back of the red car on the left side.

Peter

Better kill the cross too.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5908710
I expected that, too. I wonder where you get that compulsion from?

I have good mentors...

You forgot to clone out the parking lines!

I am driving myself insane now with the background and parking lot defects. With spare time being reduced on a daily basis, I keep adding more time to the PP work for each photo. Cracks in the blacktop, light posts in the background, parking stripes...where does it all end?!?

Hot rod shots:
the second one looks better to me. The first and third look a bit over sharpened. The light pole does not bother me as much as the cross looking like it is growing out of the hood.

Great Thread Frank!